Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands.
Conservation decisions should be evaluated for how they meet conservation goals at multiple spatial extents. Conservation easements are land use decisions resulting from a combination of social and environmental conditions. An emerging area of research is the evaluation of spatial distribution of ea...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4605775?pdf=render |
| _version_ | 1819211286070689792 |
|---|---|
| author | Robert F Baldwin Paul B Leonard |
| author_facet | Robert F Baldwin Paul B Leonard |
| author_sort | Robert F Baldwin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Conservation decisions should be evaluated for how they meet conservation goals at multiple spatial extents. Conservation easements are land use decisions resulting from a combination of social and environmental conditions. An emerging area of research is the evaluation of spatial distribution of easements and their spatial correlates. We tested the relative influence of interacting social and environmental variables on the spatial distribution of conservation easements by ownership category and conservation status. For the Appalachian region of the United States, an area with a long history of human occupation and complex land uses including public-private conservation, we found that settlement, economic, topographic, and environmental data associated with spatial distribution of easements (N = 4813). Compared to random locations, easements were more likely to be found in lower elevations, in areas of greater agricultural productivity, farther from public protected areas, and nearer other human features. Analysis of ownership and conservation status revealed sources of variation, with important differences between local and state government ownerships relative to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and among U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP program status levels. NGOs were more likely to have easements nearer protected areas, and higher conservation status, while local governments held easements closer to settlement, and on lands of greater agricultural potential. Logistic interactions revealed environmental variables having effects modified by social correlates, and the strongest predictors overall were social (distance to urban area, median household income, housing density, distance to land trust office). Spatial distribution of conservation lands may be affected by geographic area of influence of conservation groups, suggesting that multi-scale conservation planning strategies may be necessary to satisfy local and regional needs for reserve networks. Our results support previous findings and provide an ecoregion-scale view that conservation easements may provide, at local scales, conservation functions on productive, more developable lands. Conservation easements may complement functions of public protected areas but more research should examine relative landscape-level ecological functions of both forms of protection. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T06:24:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-78f8181de63548888f3a19a0abe35c37 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T06:24:39Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-78f8181de63548888f3a19a0abe35c372022-12-21T17:57:07ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-011010e014054010.1371/journal.pone.0140540Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands.Robert F BaldwinPaul B LeonardConservation decisions should be evaluated for how they meet conservation goals at multiple spatial extents. Conservation easements are land use decisions resulting from a combination of social and environmental conditions. An emerging area of research is the evaluation of spatial distribution of easements and their spatial correlates. We tested the relative influence of interacting social and environmental variables on the spatial distribution of conservation easements by ownership category and conservation status. For the Appalachian region of the United States, an area with a long history of human occupation and complex land uses including public-private conservation, we found that settlement, economic, topographic, and environmental data associated with spatial distribution of easements (N = 4813). Compared to random locations, easements were more likely to be found in lower elevations, in areas of greater agricultural productivity, farther from public protected areas, and nearer other human features. Analysis of ownership and conservation status revealed sources of variation, with important differences between local and state government ownerships relative to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and among U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP program status levels. NGOs were more likely to have easements nearer protected areas, and higher conservation status, while local governments held easements closer to settlement, and on lands of greater agricultural potential. Logistic interactions revealed environmental variables having effects modified by social correlates, and the strongest predictors overall were social (distance to urban area, median household income, housing density, distance to land trust office). Spatial distribution of conservation lands may be affected by geographic area of influence of conservation groups, suggesting that multi-scale conservation planning strategies may be necessary to satisfy local and regional needs for reserve networks. Our results support previous findings and provide an ecoregion-scale view that conservation easements may provide, at local scales, conservation functions on productive, more developable lands. Conservation easements may complement functions of public protected areas but more research should examine relative landscape-level ecological functions of both forms of protection.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4605775?pdf=render |
| spellingShingle | Robert F Baldwin Paul B Leonard Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. PLoS ONE |
| title | Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. |
| title_full | Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. |
| title_fullStr | Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. |
| title_short | Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands. |
| title_sort | interacting social and environmental predictors for the spatial distribution of conservation lands |
| url | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4605775?pdf=render |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertfbaldwin interactingsocialandenvironmentalpredictorsforthespatialdistributionofconservationlands AT paulbleonard interactingsocialandenvironmentalpredictorsforthespatialdistributionofconservationlands |